Originally posted by Sea of red
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass Shooting Las Vegas...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYes which is why the gun control crowd should show some common sense and not push the issue. if you force people to follow the letter of the law you might not like what you get. not that liberals have any self awareness whatsoever. it's like the idiots demanding that you be forced to join a militia to be allowed to carry firearms. literally pushing for right wing death squadsVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI think they ARE legal according to the 2nd amendment. And bazookas.
No seriously, the second amendment is no more absolute than any of the other amendments -- none of the constitution is. You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character. You have freedom of religion, but you're not allowed to harm people because your religious guides you to do so. You have the right to consume alcohol, but driving under the influence is prohibited.
Same thing with firearms. You can have firearms and you have the right to use them to protect yourself and hunt, but weapons that are a threat to public safety such as machine guns are controlled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostYou have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostWhy don't you go and buy one on the black market, and keep it in the back window of your car on the way home.
No seriously, the second amendment is no more absolute than any of the other amendments -- none of the constitution is. You have freedom of speech, but you don't have freedom to make libelous claims against another character. You have freedom of religion, but you don't get harm people because your religious guides to. You have the right to consume alcohol, but driving under the influence is prohibited.
Same thing with firearms. You can have firearms and you have the right to use them to protect yourself and hunt, but weapons that a pose a threat to public safety such as machine guns are controlled.
So you can constitutionally own any firearm, the way I read it, but if you use it to harm someone illegally then you have to pay the consequences, just like if you misused your freedom of speech.
Comment
-
oh an I can go out and buy a machine gun if I want.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ide-full-auto/
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWasn't there of a town in Illinois which banned handguns, so people switched to shotguns for home defense, resulting in the death rate for home invaders going way up?"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Amazing how your definition of a good Christian is one that cannot possibly be any threat whatsoever to you and any of the evil you like to spread. Truly miraculous how fortuitous this coincidence is."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNever heard of this, i'd think an outright ban on handguns would be unconstitutional (not that that ever stopped liberals from trying).
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe second amendment is worded differently than those are. It is stated as recognizing a natural right and prohibiting the government from infringing upon it. It doesn't protect gun owners from the consequences of using the gun. Just like you are not protected from the consequences of using your free speech to libel someone. Or using your religion to murder someone.
So you can constitutionally own any firearm, the way I read it, but if you use it to harm someone illegally then you have to pay the consequences, just like if you misused your freedom of speech.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSince the 2nd Amendment acknowledges we have a natural right to have guns and prevents the government from infringing on that right, all arguments against us having guns are moot.
living document.jpg
The Constitution is not a living document, it can only be changed by an amendment. Liberal activist judges are unconstitutionally abusing the law in their actions.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostFair enough. But you intended it to be an argument against Mountain Man's comment, "And think of how many lives we could save if we banned ladders!"
To which, you said, "I don't think that would be practical. Again, ladders are in far more common use than guns are," and then explained that you meant, "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, we'd likely see far FAR more gun deaths."
But now you are saying that what you meant was something like, "If we used guns as unsafely as ladders" or "If we used guns as often as we used ladders, but that that quantity of gun use did not include all the actual safe uses of guns such as at ranges and safe practices while hunting".
But then it's not clear how that is an argument against Mountain Man. The amount of lives actually saved/lost in each case would depend on how the things are actually being used. Which is why I interpreted your argument to be talking about that.
Originally posted by Joel View PostNo, victimless "crimes" and the state trying to protect persons from themselves are not necessary to society with laws.
Originally posted by Joel View PostDo you have a more neutral term that I can substitute? It's inconvenient to say, every time, something like "the millions of people who have not committed and would not have committed the crime in question (e.g. murder) either way, but receive injury that is merely collateral to the goal".
Or what do you think they are guilty of?
Originally posted by Joel View PostI didn't say they are like each other except in the general sense of them both being human actions. (We might add that neither is an act of physically injuring anyone) Their being similar actions wasn't relevant. It is the uses of force against them that are of the same kind: they both consist primarily of collateral force (i.e. against non-terrorists and non-murderers) to try to reduce a small risk from a small number of bad guys (e.g. murderers or terrorists).
Originally posted by Joel View PostThat's what everyone who proposes the use of force against people for humanitarian reasons thinks and/or claims. (it's really to help people. It's for the greater good) That was the reasoning used to justify the murder of millions in Russia. Isabel Paterson referred to this argument, in its logical conclusion, as the "Humanitarian with the Guillotine" (https://mises.org/library/humanitarian-guillotine ).
Originally posted by Joel View PostAnd similarly, the stated intent to ban/restrict Muslims isn't to hurt people, it's to save lives by reducing the risk of terrorist acts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Post...why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostWe have other laws passed by congress that now regulates them.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:12 PM
|
3 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:26 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:07 PM
|
17 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:40 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:00 PM
|
6 responses
51 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 09:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
|
9 responses
83 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 10:33 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
41 responses
164 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 12:35 AM
|
Comment